Sunday, 30 November 2014

At times the real problem is when employees stay, not when they leave

Organizations
habitually concentrate all of their efforts on coming up with new, sound
solutions to improve the effectiveness of their employee retention practices.
From this point of view, it could be argued that organizations treat their
employees as their customers. Since competition in every market has become increasingly
harsh, expanding the current clientele has proved to be an extremely tricky feat
to perform in practice so that employers have found out that a great part of
their efforts should be devoted to the retention of their current customers,
too. Similarly, in addition to the struggle aimed at attracting new talents
from the external environment, employers have realized that a considerable
amount of resources should be used for and directed at retaining the talented
individuals the organization already employees.

Inasmuch as not all of the customers are good customers, nonetheless,
not all of the employees are good employees. Customers who do not timely meet payments
on their orders, for instance, are not good customers, never mind those who do
not pay for the goods or services they order at all. Likewise, individuals who
do not behave as expected by their employer or do not perform at the standard
desired by this are not good employees. Businesses should hence devote close,
careful attention to the employees who stay with the organization. At times,
especially in those organizations in which reward is based on individual length
of service, that is, on the mere circumstance of employees “being still there”,
the fact an employee remains with his/her organization might indeed not necessarily
represent a good event for the employer.

Irrespective of the circumstances which have accounted for
an individual having decided to leave his/her employer, whether this leave is
because this is active, determined, focused and, most of all, because this
considers his/her competencies and skills valuable and thus marketable. After
all, it actually hardly happens that an individual leaves his current
organization whether this has not already received a similar or even better
offer from a different employer, which provides an evidence of its own accord
that the individual really has some qualities. With the exception of those
cases in which individuals are very good at selling themselves, it could be hence
argued that people who leave a business are habitually individuals who perform
at appreciable levels or have the skills and capabilities to potentially
perform at significant standards. By contrast, some individuals stay and are by
no means supposed to leave their employer because these are well-aware that no
other organization in the market would offer them the same reward package as
that offered by the present employer.

People who perform any
given job since a decade or longer and receive automatic salary increases based
on length of service, but have not developed any skills or capabilities over
time, would find it particularly difficult to change their employer whilst continuing
to receive the same level of pay. In essence, organizations whose reward system
is based on length of service ensure to individuals regular pay increases irrespective
of their real contribution to the business results. This entails that in such
instances individuals attain over time appreciable levels of pay irrespective
of their contribution, performance and capabilities. By reason of their relatively
considerable income, these people would find it sorely difficult to find a new
job enabling these to receive from the outset the same current level of pay
elsewhere, unless these have not gained substantial, remarkable abilities,
competencies and expertise over time.

The circumstance an individual remains with his/her employer
for decades or even till retirement, notwithstanding, has not clearly be seen
and perceived as a negative event. On the contrary, this occurrence should be
hailed as somewhat of an achievement by the employer, but only and only whether
the employee is satisfactorily contributing to the organizational results. Individuals
who receive a valuable reward package and regular pay increases from their
employer regardless of their efforts and contribution to the organizational
output might tend to create somewhat of a comfort zone and would clearly
eventually resist any attempt to alter the favourable state of play. The
existence of such circumstance can indeed produce remarkable downsides and
prove to be counterproductive.

Employees who with the passing of the years have completely
lost interest and enthusiasm for their job and pay lip service to the way they perform
their daily activities are very unlikely to develop new skills and capabilities;
let alone can these help managers to redesign the way the job is done. By
contrast, the lack of interest and the insufficiency used when performing their
job may potentially account for these individuals losing part of their
abilities. It is hardly believable that, once this vicious circle has been triggered,
the level of performance and the results yielded by these individuals might be considered
as significant by the employer and fulfilling by themselves.

More often than not, in order to prevent conflicts to openly
emerge managers tend to avert dealing with this type of employee behaviour. Conflicts,
whether evident, should eventually be managed and since it is objectively
difficult to tackle such types of problems, managers habitually prefer to overlook
such situations. This clearly represents the worst approach: firstly because,
openly emerged or not, the conflict is essentially already existing, secondly
in that such occurrences can negatively impact the other employees performance
and the overall Unit climate.

Inasmuch as these circumstances
are undesirable and difficult to manage, adopting the right approach can
definitely help managers to effectually deal with these. It is indeed crucially
important that managers take appropriate action in that such situations can
just risk degenerating and are unlikely to ameliorate with the simple passing
of the time. The activities not performed by these people should be otherwise permanently
carried out by the other colleagues, with the obvious consequences this will
produce for their workload and the overall Unit climate. Yet, other employees
efforts notwithstanding, the Unit concerned may risk not yielding the desired
result, fact which according to the reward system run within the business may in
turn make an impact on the income of all the employees of the Unit.

The first step managers should invariably take is hence that
to frankly talk to the individuals concerned, try to find out which the roots
of such behaviour are and agree with these the initiatives and actions
necessary to let them feel back at ease in the workplace. Apathy amongst
employees can be sometimes caused by their discontent with the management
decisions, which these may perceive as unfair and biased. In other cases,
individuals might (also inadvertently) decide to give up doing their best at
work by reason of considering their job monotonous and repetitive or because
they have never been offered opportunities for growth. At times, such behaviour
can be triggered by the employee perception of the existence of a simultaneous
combination of two or more of this type of circumstances.

Openly discussing the reasons behind the employee behaviour
can definitely help managers to find out which the origins of such behaviour
are and to identify the most appropriate solutions to address the problem. This
is not clearly a straightforward objective to attain. Sometimes employees
perform below an acceptable standard just because these do not consider it
worth making any effort to attain what they receive as a matter of course and
take as axiomatic, that is to say their pay. In other cases, the managers’ task
is particularly tricky in that, for apparently mundane an activity might be considered
to be by the employees concerned, this is absolutely necessary for the Unit to
yield the final results. Since the task performed by these employees is truly
significant for the business and the attainment of its overall objectives, in this
particular instance job design and the employees’ firm and stable involvement
should help managers to effectually resolve the issue.

Definitely not an easy task for managers, but turning a
blind eye to employee misbehaviour and poor performance will never ever enable
these to identify and overcome the problem.

How can reward practises
help

In the case of employees
deliberately underperforming and misbehaving, despite the management attempt
and manifested willingness to mend relations with the individuals concerned and
find appropriate solutions, the benefits produced in this sense by the sorting
effect can definitely help. Usually used to attract and retain quality
individuals from the exogenous context, the sorting effect can be also used to offer
more generous reward packages to the company best performers in order to encourage
worst and bad performers to either raise their level of contribution or leave
the organization. This strategy is indeed likely to work properly when managers
have been devolved a considerable degree of latitude to administer the reward
budget and a variable pay scheme is in place. By contrast, whether the business
reward system is length-of-service-based some individuals may find it pointless
to make extra efforts to increase the value of their reward package: the
efforts necessary to attain the additional benefit may in fact not be
proportionate to its worth. In these instances and according to the
circumstances, employers may attempt to reach with the employees concerned an
agreement on a severance package.

Reward practices may also prove to be useful to engage employees
when these are performing repetitive tasks. Gain-sharing programmes, for
instance, may show to be effective to make these individuals perceive the
significance of their contribution to the overall organizational outcome.
Notwithstanding, every financial reward manoeuvre should preferably be
implemented in combination with some other initiatives; clearly explaining to
each individual how his/her work fits into the overall business process, for
example, should invariably be part of the identified bundle in that of paramount
importance.

Constantly involving individuals with the aim of coming up
with new and more effective ways of designing and performing their job can
definitely help, too. Yet, offering employees, according to their attitudes and
behaviour, opportunities for horizontal and vertical growth should be placed high
at the top of the line managers’ agenda.

Employers should also seriously consider offering
individuals the opportunity to expand their knowledge and continue their
education. Such initiatives, even whether employees are performing repetitive
tasks, will make individuals understand that their employer really cares about
them. The psychological contract has changed over time and for employees the opportunity
to extended their education and gain new capabilities and expertise,
contributing to make their skills more marketable, really matters and counts.

The managers’ and employers’ task is unquestionably daunting,
but whether these should identify the most suitable tools and initiatives,
which they can realistically implement to support their quest possibly by
bundling them where practicable, the task would show to be easier and the final
result definitely a win-win for employers, managers and employees as well.

Longo, R., (2014), At
times the real problem is when employees stay, not when they leave; HR Professionals, Milan [online].